Steve Long kirjoitti: > Petteri Räty wrote: >> Steve Long kirjoitti: >>> Petteri Räty wrote: >>>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163262 >>>> >>> What is the situation regarding the hooks in general? >> A user feature as said in the bug. >> > What, you mean the bit I quoted? I am well aware it's a "user feature," > surprisingly enough. >
Yes. A user feature for EAPI-0, nothing more. So if you know what they are why ask here? >>> The "only a user feature" bothers me tbh. Is it so hard to make the >>> functions stack then? >>> >> Hard or not, read and understand what the whole EAPI stuff is about. >> Feel free to propose stuff for EAPI-1 but to do that you should be able >> to grasp what is useful and what is not. For that one should have lots >> of ebuild writing experience. >> > That's nice; I really don't see the relevance. The question was: why can't > this be implemented in a sane (ie stackable) fashion? I wasn't even talking > about proposing stuff for EAPI=1, just enquiring about the general state of > hooks since there didn't seem to be a clear consensus from the bug. > Yep you don't see it but don't you wonder that you are the only one responding to this thread? The hooks can't and will not be part of EAPI-0 because it's not backwards ABI compatible. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163262#c11 "Short version; it's valid- I specifically gave them the go ahead till the underlying issues (not their fault) were fixed." The underlying issues are now fixed so the hooks are gone. >>> (I'm thinking along the lines of an eclass which defines foo_src_unpack >>> which can be called by an ebuild function if overridden.) >>> >> Which would be how eclasses already work. >> > Yes, that was my point: why is that not appropriate for this set of > functions? > Doesn't make it backwards ABI compatible. What part of the I am happy to explain this stuff in more detail off list didn't you understand? Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
